BvS Is anyone else not excited about Superman and Batman? I feel nothing but dread. - Part 1

[Tobias]

I think he'll seem like he's undermining Superman until the end when Batman reveals he was actually trying to _____ to stop Lex.

But how can the audience buy the concept of Batman as an antagonist to Superman in a Superman film? That would be incredibly difficult to pull off.

This is not a Superman film its a Batman/Superman film. A team-up. So anything is possible.

 

[STARMAN]

They'll fight. Then realize it was all a misunderstanding. Hilarious hijinks will ensue.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

They'll fight. Then realize it was all a misunderstanding. Hilarious hijinks will ensue.

Yes, can't wait for Batman to use the banana peel from his utility belt on Superman. t:

 

[Herolee10]

Me thinks Batman will be the antagonist in this film. There's no way I can see the finale being anything other than Batman and Superman duking it out.

I think he'll seem like he's undermining Superman until the end when Batman reveals he was actually trying to _____ to stop Lex.

But how can the audience buy the concept of Batman as an antagonist to Superman in a Superman film? That would be incredibly difficult to pull off.

Not to mention, it's not exactly the easiest thing on presenting a "fair fight" between the two of them without making one of them look very bad, whether it be Superman owning Batman as he would normally be able to do in a direct confrontation versus batman owning Superman through some plot device.

Dude, relax. It's been one day since Batman's casting was announced. We all knew that was going to be a big deal, no matter who they cast. If anything, you should be happy the announcement was made this early on. Now, once the buzz settles down and production begins, I believe we'll see a pretty fair and balanced marketing campaign that features both characters evenly.

To be fair, you shouldn't blame WB for using their biggest asset (Batman) to their advantage.

I'm just an irked Superman fan that's still a bit ticked off that Superman has yet to get a direct sequel since the 80's, along with how Batman's inclusion will really limit as to what can be explored and developed from Superman and the characters from his universe.

 

[jmc]

I think he'll seem like he's undermining Superman until the end when Batman reveals he was actually trying to _____ to stop Lex.

But how can the audience buy the concept of Batman as an antagonist to Superman in a Superman film? That would be incredibly difficult to pull off.

Not really, Superman is going to be seen by some as an enemy, Batman could conceivably be one of those people and make it his mission to stop Big Blue. He may not be an 'enemy' per se, but he can easily be an adversary. The ending will be them duking it out with there being some form of stalemate, maybe even a victory of sorts to one of them and perhaps an understanding on where one and other stand. They won't be friends in this film at all, I'll put my money on it. If it's called Batman v Superman that's the finale of the film, you don't have that during Act 1 or 2, it's the climax.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

The thing is, MoS was clearly not written to lead into a team up film. The end of MoS, 'Welcome to the Planet Clark' beautifully set up a Man of Steel 2 and nothing more. People are now saying this team up movie has been in the works for a while longer then people initially thought, but its only been around a short time compared to how long ago MoS was filmed, and written, which years and years ago, i.e before Avengers.

So now I hope this film has time to satisfyingly show the Clark we were teased with at the end of MoS, and for him to actually be this symbol of hope that people can get behind. Because if he's going to contrast Batman in any way, he really needs to be that symbol of hope the film talked about so much, but didn't actually leave much room for itself to explore.

While I would have preferred MOS2, I don't entirely agree with this. I don't understand why that line would mean another character couldn't show up and certain aspects of MOS still couldn't be addressed. This doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

From day one we knew MOS was part of a shared universe. I find it silly that after such catastrophic events of MOS, that being it is a shared universe, that not one other character would not step up and investigate these events and see what Superman is about. It has to happen now that it is a shared universe. There needs to be reaction in the superhero world to the finale of MOS. Just look at Iron Man, by the end of that very same film, there was reaction to Iron Man appearing in the form of Nick Fury. Here it will be Batman.

 

[Herolee10]

Not really, Superman is going to be seen by some as an enemy, Batman could conceivably be one of those people and make it his mission to stop Big Blue. He may not be an 'enemy' per se, but he can easily be an adversary. The ending will be them duking it out with there being some form of stalemate, maybe even a victory of sorts to one of them and perhaps an understanding on where one and other stand. They won't be friends in this film at all, I'll put my money on it. If it's called Batman v Superman that's the finale of the film, you don't have that during Act 1 or 2, it's the climax.

And if it's not called Superman vs Batman, then how do you see their relationship being portrayed then in the film?

 

[jmc]

And if it's not called Superman vs Batman, then how do you see their relationship being portrayed then in the film?

Honestly, I can't see them going any other path even if it isn't called that, frankly given where MoS left off I don't see there being a lot else for Batman to do other than essentially be given a Lex Luthor type of role as the response to Superman.

 

[The Shape]

I'm just an irked Superman fan that's still a bit ticked off that Superman has yet to get a direct sequel since the 80's, along with how Batman's inclusion will really limit as to what can be explored and developed from Superman and the characters from his universe.

Or the inclusion of Batman will enhance Superman's arc. They'll both learn something from one another by the film's end.

 

[The Shape]

And if it's not called Superman vs Batman, then how do you see their relationship being portrayed then in the film?

I see them clashing for the first half or 3/4 of the film, before putting their differences aside to overcome a common threat during the film's climax. Isn't that pretty obvious?

 

[Marvin]

Agreed.

Before I go on, I just want to clarify that I'm not one of the fanboys that's complaining and throwing a tantrum over Ben's selection for the role. I'm honestly in a wait and see mode in regards to what he'll eventually bring in the final cut of the film.

My issue is not so much about Ben being chosen for the film, but more about how this will effect Superman and the focus on him in this film in general.

Honestly, one of my fears is that due to Ben's influence, he may try to make Batman appear more dominant and superior to Superman in this film.

So in other words you are going on a different sort of tantrum!
One more in line with say, a mother not wanting her son's lead part in the school play to have any of it's spot light shared.

It's admirable in a way but all together somewhat petty imho. If this was just a matter of assuming poor quality in the film that would be one thing but this comes off to me as something else. If Sherlock and Batman had a cross over I can see similar such fanboy concerns being raised.

It's already bad enough that the buzz of this film is going to be majorly on Batman due to both Batman's popularity and the selection of Affleck for the role.

Who cares about what causes the(much appreciated) buzz, it's the film you should be concerned with. This same thing happens every time a new popular villain is announced for a role(see venom/joker/doc ock/Bane/catwomen). It's a combination of the newer element garnering the attention.

IF Lex is in this film, I'm afraid that rather than being portrayed as Superman's archenemy like he's supposed to be in the same manner that Joker is for Batman, he'll be portrayed as more of a Batman enemy due to Batman's presence.

Problem?
Ignoring that lex is an enemy to both in the material(much like joker was an enemy to both dent and batman). Joker was an enemy to everyone in that film(even his own men) but there was one key point that made him batman's arch enemy. Joker never shut up about batman and his particular rhetoric against him. He messed with everyone(dent in the hospital) but it was batman on his mind. Now granted, joker is sort of a singular focused obsessive individual in that way, but I'm pretty sure when lex starts his diatribe about the alien a similar effect will be achieved.
Also, all the film has to do begin with Luthor's motivations squarely aimed at the Man of Steel alien.

30 years of movies(and tv shows) where our culture has been conditioned to understand that Lex is superman's arch enemy over and over and you worry that now that bat's is in the picture there will be a failure to communicate? Meh, if anything it will be a welcomed changed imo. I love when Bruce puts his attention on Lex(the real bruce not that nolan creature).

I'm honestly worried for Superman fans that we're on the brink of undergoing the same treatment that Cyclops' fans had to go through when Wolverine was in the picture and with Hugh Jackman's fame being greater than James Mardsen.

You really think that
There is a lot of sensationalism in that comparison. Just seems like a bad and overblown example.

-Xmen 3 was a spit in the face to the character in every way(including killing him off in the first 3 mins). Will Superman might be killed off in the first 3 minutes in an adaptation of one of his most famous and specific arcs? Also Cyclops was replaced as the leader to the xmen...
-Xmen 2 Cyclops was taken out a quarter into the film...
-Xmen 1...meh not bad. Had his girl flirted with, I like that idea tbh.
That's what your comparison evokes, I think it's a bit much.

Point being I just think if you honestly have that fear than you should rest easy. Ignoring all other things, Cyclops didn't have his name in the title. Moreover, the producers weren't calling cyclops the "king daddy of superheroes" or "the pillar/totem/top of the pyramid of the universe"
Relax

I don't need to see a live action film portraying Batman and Superman alongside each other like how Bruce Timm or Frank Miller does with their stories.

I thought Frank was writing batman stories though?
What's wrong with how Timm does it?
Pretty sure if they look at the recent dcu comics, they will be fine.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it when proven so, but until then, I honestly don't see any reason to be looking forward to this as a SUPERMAN fans.

Speak for yourself.
You clearly are a particular kind of fan.

The ONLY people that are likely to get something from this film are Batman's fans...NOT..and I repeat..NOT Superman's fans. That's the biggest difference.

Here's the thing, let's just say you are right in your many theories above and batman get's the better of superman and lex isn't portrayed as superman sworn enemy and some or even lots of focus is "taken away from superman".
To then imply that the ONLY people that are likely to get something from this film are Batman fans? I'm pretty sure even the pa kent fans....even the hulk fans will get something out of this.

This leads me to my analogy of the stage play mom and her child in the lead. It's evocative of a sort of entitlement. It would be one thing to question if the superman character will get appropriate story focus for development, but that's not what I'm reading in your posts(sorry if I'm mistaken).

This is one step removed from the popular mentality during DC/Marvel crossovers

I suppose this acceptable, superman fans have been trough a lot

 

[jmc]

I see them clashing for the first half or 3/4 of the film, before putting their differences aside to overcome a common threat during the film's climax. Isn't that pretty obvious?

A bit too predictable if you ask me.

 

[georgec]

A bit too predictable if you ask me.

You don't have this film be a lead in for JL without having Batman and Superman team up by the end. Otherwise the film has thematically accomplished nothing.

 

[jmc]

You don't have this film be a lead in for JL without having Batman and Superman team up by the end. Otherwise the film has thematically accomplished nothing.

You're assuming JL is next.

 

[AnneFan]

It's the newness of the thing. If it was Affleck back in the day instead of Keaton or Kilmer, etc, and one of those guys was cast yesterday, people would be apprehensive of them now too. What was going to happen next. Time heals all wounds, and every new journey begins with a first step.

 

[Herolee10]

Honestly, I can't see them going any other path even if it isn't called that, frankly given where MoS left off I don't see there being a lot else for Batman to do other than essentially be given a Lex Luthor type of role as the response to Superman.

Then what would Lex himself do if he's in the film at all?lol Superman is still going to need some super villain to go up against since I doubt that they'll just settle with a regular Lex and Batman for his physical battles.

I see them clashing for the first half or 3/4 of the film, before putting their differences aside to overcome a common threat during the film's climax. Isn't that pretty obvious?

They could always go about it in a public enemies type of style where the first half deals with Superman and batman getting off of the wrong foot, then when Lex is able to turn the world against them, they have to rely on each other.

Or the inclusion of Batman will enhance Superman's arc. They'll both learn something from one another by the film's end.

I truly hope so.

So in other words you are going on a different sort of tantrum!
One more in line with say, a mother not wanting her son's lead part in the school play to have any of it's spot light shared.

It's admirable in a way but all together somewhat petty imho. If this was just a matter of assuming poor quality in the film that would be one thing but this comes off to me as something else. If Sherlock and Batman had a cross over I can see similar such fanboy concerns being raised.

Who cares about what causes the(much appreciated) buzz, it's the film you should be concerned with. This same thing happens every time a new popular villain is announced for a role(see venom/joker/doc ock/Bane/catwomen). It's a combination of the newer element garnering the attention.


Problem?
Ignoring that lex is an enemy to both in the material(much like joker was an enemy to both dent and batman). Joker was an enemy to everyone in that film(even his own men) but there was one key point that made him batman's arch enemy. Joker never shut up about batman and his particular rhetoric against him. He messed with everyone(dent in the hospital) but it was batman on his mind. Now granted, joker is sort of a singular focused obsessive individual in that way, but I'm pretty sure when lex starts his diatribe about the alien a similar effect will be achieved.
Also, all the film has to do begin with Luthor's motivations squarely aimed at the Man of Steel alien.

30 years of movies(and tv shows) where our culture has been conditioned to understand that Lex is superman's arch enemy over and over and you worry that now that bat's is in the picture there will be a failure to communicate? Meh, if anything it will be a welcomed changed imo. I love when Bruce puts his attention on Lex(the real bruce not that nolan creature).

You really think that
There is a lot of sensationalism in that comparison. Just seems like a bad and overblown example.

-Xmen 3 was a spit in the face to the character in every way(including killing him off in the first 3 mins). Will Superman might be killed off in the first 3 minutes in an adaptation of one of his most famous and specific arcs? Also Cyclops was replaced as the leader to the xmen...
-Xmen 2 Cyclops was taken out a quarter into the film...
-Xmen 1...meh not bad. Had his girl flirted with, I like that idea tbh.
That's what your comparison evokes, I think it's a bit much.

Point being I just think if you honestly have that fear than you should rest easy. Ignoring all other things, Cyclops didn't have his name in the title. Moreover, the producers weren't calling cyclops the "king daddy of superheroes" or "the pillar/totem/top of the pyramid of the universe"
Relax

I thought Frank was writing batman stories though?
What's wrong with how Timm does it?
Pretty sure if they look at the recent dcu comics, they will be fine.


Speak for yourself.
You clearly are a particular kind of fan.


Here's the thing, let's just say you are right in your many theories above and batman get's the better of superman and lex isn't portrayed as superman sworn enemy and some or even lots of focus is "taken away from superman".
To then imply that the ONLY people that are likely to get something from this film are Batman fans? I'm pretty sure even the pa kent fans....even the hulk fans will get something out of this.

This leads me to my analogy of the stage play mom and her child in the lead. It's evocative of a sort of entitlement. It would be one thing to question if the superman character will get appropriate story focus for development, but that's not what I'm reading in your posts(sorry if I'm mistaken).

This is one step removed from the popular mentality during DC/Marvel crossovers

I suppose this acceptable, superman fans have been trough a lot

Well for starters, how about the fact that Batman (even though it's not Affleck's version of course but the character in general) just had a successful trilogy of his own? Superman has yet to have his own solo franchise and, truth be told, wasn't really established as Superman completely at the end of MOS. And I don't know about you guys, but I think covering the portion where Clark figures that all out is something that needs to be shown on screen and not just glossed over and that's something that can't really be dived into completely when you have the likes of Batman present.

And plus, granted that Joker and Lex has gone up against both characters in the past, they are gradually accepted as the main enemy for their respective heroes, thus I argue, if Batman was allowed to have Joker on his own, why can't Superman have Lex on his own?

Why does Superman need to, in a way, share his battle with Lex with batman? How is that exactly fair when Batman was allowed to go up against his archenemy on his own?

And what's wrong with how Bruce Timm did it? Isn't it obvious that Batman was his favorite character and while Superman had his moments to shine here and there, they were not as much as his version of Batman and Batman was portrayed as the one incorruptible hero who was the better person out of the two of them.

 

[georgec]

You're assuming JL is next.

It's pretty obvious.

And even if JL weren't next, what I said holds true. If you don't have Superman and Batman come together by the end, you've tread water for 2.5 hours. Everyone knows that's what has to happen.

 

[jmc]

Then what would Lex himself do if he's in the film at all?lol Superman is still going to need some super villain to go up against since I doubt that they'll just settle with a regular Lex and Batman for his physical battles.

I don't think Lex will be. Gut feeling.

 

[Marvin]

Me thinks Batman will be the antagonist in this film. There's no way I can see the finale being anything other than Batman and Superman duking it out.

Not sure how that's conducive to a JL movie down the immediate line.
Then again I suppose they did quote DKR...however that book isn't conducive to a JL story down the immediate line...

Also pretty sure that third acts in these big team up movies these days are reserved for big teamwork battles. All the infighting is placed squarely in the second act).
See fast 5,
see avengers,
see expendables
pretty sure this will happen in the ninja turtles film too(infighting then team up) just as it happened in the original...

visavi.

Spoiler

 

[Herolee10]

I don't think Lex will be. Gut feeling.

Honestly, it wouldn't make sense given how many Lexcorp signs we had in the film and how his character has been constantly brought up by Snyder and Goyer whenever they talked about the sequel. In fact, Lex and Bruce are the only DC characters that they've really talked about in name whenever mentioning the larger DC Universe that exists within MOS's world.

Plus, they'll need someone in charge that'll be responsible for manipulating the events that forces Superman and Batman to end up being at odds with each other.

 

[jmc]

It's pretty obvious.

And even if JL weren't next, what I said holds true. If you don't have Superman and Batman come together by the end, you've tread water for 2.5 hours. Everyone knows that's what has to happen.

Why? One plays the hero, one plays the villain, which is which can be down to your personal point of view. That sounds far more interesting a finale than them 'putting aside their differences and joining forces'. Nothing has to happen mate.

 

[The Shape]

A bit too predictable if you ask me.

Sounds predictable when written in one broad-stroke sentence like that. Lets not forget that there will be plenty of twists/turns/obstacles along the way, some of which will depend on the villain(s).

Also, yeah, the fights between Bats and Supes will be cool, but just imagine how insanely awesome the actual team-up fight will be.

 

[The Shape]

Batman will most likely seemingly be the antagonist to the audience. His motives might not be clear, and Superman will appear to be the "good guy" for much of the film...until its revealed that Batman can be trusted.

 

[Marvin]

Well for starters, how about the fact that Batman (even though it's not Affleck's version of course but the character in general) just had a successful trilogy of his own? Superman has yet to have his own solo franchise and, truth be told, wasn't really established as Superman completely at the end of MOS. And I don't know about you guys, but I think covering the portion where Clark figures that all out is something that needs to be shown on screen and not just glossed over and that's something that can't really be dived into completely when you have the likes of Batman present.

And plus, granted that Joker and Lex has gone up against both characters in the past, they are gradually accepted as the main enemy for their respective heroes, thus I argue, if Batman was allowed to have Joker on his own, why can't Superman have Lex on his own?

Why does Superman need to, in a way, share his battle with Lex with batman? How is that exactly fair when Batman was allowed to go up against his archenemy on his own?

And what's wrong with how Bruce Timm did it? Isn't it obvious that Batman was his favorite character and while Superman had his moments to shine here and there, they were not as much as his version of Batman and Batman was portrayed as the one incorruptible hero who was the better person out of the two of them.

You're entitled to your opinion.

To me it just comes off in the realm of fanboyisms.

I do think Timm has various short comings, but he seems to really get batman(in most ways). The worlds finest feature he made was pretty on point imo.

 

[Herolee10]

Honestly, I think people care more about seeing these two work together than spending most of a film going against each other.

Just imagine this film if it pitted Superman and Batman against the likes of Lex Luthor, who's in control of villains like Metallo and Deathstroke and employs them to go up against the World's Finest while manipulating everything else to fit to his needs.